cx_s_list_learning_courses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly frames the tool as a read-only listing operation and discloses the exact fields returned and their purpose for follow-up calls. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or error behavior, but for a simple no-parameter list operation this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that states what is listed, which fields are returned, and why those fields matter for later steps. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides the essential context: what is returned and why the identifiers are useful. It could mention authentication requirements or give an example downstream operation, but the definition is functional for an agent deciding to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb '列出' with a clear resource, '我学的课', and enumerates the key returned identifiers: courseId, clazzId, cpi, and teacher name. This distinguishes it from sibling cx_list_courses by emphasizing the user's own enrolled courses rather than a generic course list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase '后续操作用这些 ID 定位' gives clear context that this tool is meant to be called first to obtain IDs needed by downstream operations. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.